G.R. No. 191550 DUENAS V HRET

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition challenging a decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that declared the election protest winner. The Court found that the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the revision of ballots in additional precincts or in issuing its decision without the participation of the three Supreme Court justices on the HRET. The HRET acted within its rules and the petitioner failed to show that the HRET exercised its power in an arbitrary manner.

Uploaded by

Eirlys Verloren

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

32 views1 page

G.R. No. 191550 DUENAS V HRET

Uploaded by

Eirlys Verloren

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 1

Today is Saturday, October 10, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 191550 May 4, 2010

HENRY "JUN" DUEÑAS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ANGELITO "JETT" P. REYES, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying that the Decision1 of the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) dated February 25, 2010 and its Resolution2 dated March 18, 2010 be
declared null and void ab initio.

Petitioner was proclaimed as the Congressman for the Second Legislative District of Taguig City. Private respondent
filed an election protest with the HRET. After revision of ballots in 100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the
counter-protested precincts, the case was submitted for resolution upon the parties' submission of memoranda.
However, in its Order3 dated September 25, 2008, the HRET directed the continuation of the revision and
appreciation of ballots for the remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of said Order was denied in a HRET Resolution dated October 21, 2008 which reiterated the Order
to continue revision in the remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts. Petitioner then filed a petition for
certiorari with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 185401, seeking the nullification of said order of revision, alleging
that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. On July 21, 2009, the Court promulgated a Decision dismissing the
petition. Said Decision became final and executory and the HRET continued the proceeding in the electoral protest
case.

On February 25, 2010, the HRET promulgated its Decision which declared private respondent as the winner with a
margin of 37 votes.

In the instant petition, the main thrust of petitioner's argument is that since private respondent's margin of votes is
merely 37, this shows that the alleged reason for the HRET's order of revision, i.e., that the proclaimed results of the
congressional elections in Taguig City have been substantially affected by the results of the initial revision and
appreciation of ballots, is baseless. Petitioner then continued to reiterate his arguments raised in his earlier petition
for certiorari seeking the nullification of the HRET Resolution dated October 21, 2008. He also pointed out that the
three Justices of the Court who are members of the HRET took no part in the HRET's Decision and Resolution
denying reconsideration.

In his Comment, private respondent counters that petitioner's allegations do not show grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the HRET.

The Court resolves to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

It is hornbook principle that this Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised
only upon showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal; otherwise, the Court shall not interfere
with the electoral tribunal’s exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction.4 Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as
the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner, where the abuse is
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty.5

Such showing of grave abuse of discretion is sorely wanting in this case. Petitioner dwells on his theory that there
was no justification for the HRET's Order to continue the revision of ballots in 75% of the counter-protested
precincts. Since it was eventually determined that private respondent's margin of votes is only 37, this allegedly
shows that the results of the initial revision of ballots really had no substantial effect on the proclaimed results and,
thus, the order for continuation of revision of ballots was uncalled for. In petitioner's view, the HRET's continuation of
revision of ballots, in addition to the circumstance that none of the Supreme Court Justices who are members of the
HRET took part in the Decision, are proof that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion. 1avvphi1

The Court has long declared in Dueñas, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,6 that the HRET was
acting well within the rules when it ordered the continuation of revision of ballots. Petitioner cannot resurrect his
claims, which had been finally adjudged unmeritorious by this Court, through the present petition. Thus, the fact that
the HRET went on with the revision of ballots in 75% of the counter-protested precincts cannot be considered as
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the electoral tribunal.

Likewise, the circumstance that none of the three Supreme Court Justices took part in the Decision, cannot be taken
as proof of grave abuse of discretion. Rule 89 of the 2004 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
provides that "[f]or rendition of decisions and the adoption of formal resolutions, the concurrence of at least five (5)
Members shall be necessary." The HRET Decision dated February 25, 2010 had the concurrence of six of its
members. Verily, the HRET was acting in accordance with its rules and cannot be said to have committed any abuse
of its discretion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 25, 2010 and the
Resolution dated March 18, 2010 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice